Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Software makers should pay for bad products [TECH UPDATE]
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:38:45 -0400
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:29:31 +0100 From: M Taylor <mctaylor () privacy nb ca> Subject: Re: [IP] Software makers should pay for bad products [TECH UPDATE] To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> [for IP if you want -mct] > Software makers should pay for bad products You can't have it both ways, IT managers want their cake and to eat it too. There are companies that make less known, less exciting products that do work, some are developed with certification, and guess what? Very few IT managers are willing to pay the increase cost and accept the lack of new and exciting new bells and whistles. How many companies buy Trusted Solaris or other Orange Book or CC certified OS and run them in an approved config? Outside the military and NSA, I suspect close to zero. Take the IBM OS/390 series, it has been around for a while now, and there has been a stable and predictiable upgrade path, with good relability that can only be dreamed about in the typical Windows or Linux computing environment. But who wants to pay the price and try to sell such as unsexy purchase to the CEO and the board? IT managers have come to rely on more mainstream product vendors that make better packaged (read: sexier package with all the latest trendy features) products which can be sold easier to the board because their name is more familiar (e.g. Microsoft) than obscure companies, many of whom are no more, DEC, Wang, Acorn, ... that tried to deliver business oriented computing that worked. I still have a soft spot for DEC's VAX VMS systems which could be clustered to survive hardware and software upgrades in the late 1980s. I'm still waiting for all those features in x86 based systems, regardless of OS. I originally was very hopeful of Microsoft's "Trustworthy Computing", but I've lowered my expectations, and hope that the idea lasts so that get a little big closer to not quite wide open and naked infrastructure. I think the other issue is compatability, because most hardware and software does actually do its basic function, but intergrating it into a business's overall infrastructure is a challenge. Part of the reason for this is the vendor trying to vie for more business and engaging in action to encourage lockout of their competitors. Hal Varin's Information Rules explains it far better than I ever could. Vendors are not the only ones to blame, customers want cheap, fast, feature-rich, "exciting" products. That's what they actually buy. With the dot-com hype coming to an end I had high hopes that the computing industry would slow down, take some time to look back at what works and what doesn't and grow up. I had hoped that the VC and the 'newest new thing' reporters would go back to stock promoting, and IT managers would survey their domains and go back and fix things like the lack of documentation, testing, disaster planning, and everything else skipped during the "get big fast" days. Instead I see managers looking for new productivty "silver bullets", and continue building new even less secure networking infrastructure (thanks WiFi) in some mad dash to get those dollars out of the ether somehow. IT managers need to stop giving their money away, and then complaining about getting expensive, complex, broken, incompatible, insecure products. Wake me up when IT is willing to grow up. -- M Taylor http://www.mctaylor.com/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Software makers should pay for bad products [TECH UPDATE] Dave Farber (Sep 03)